Greetings, My panties in a bunch? I don't think so. I just posted what I thought to be the MoQ's point-of-view on theism, and what I perceived to be a problem arguing theism as the same as religion. I'm all in favor of a variety of religious experiences, but non attributed to any type of other supernatural being/s.
Mixed with some cocoa beans, I bet hot, spicy Jalapeno peppers in ice cream would be wonderful. I'd try it. Marsha On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, John Carl wrote: > I hear ya, Marsha. Jalapeno Ice Cream isn't your taste but you won't knock > the spoon outta somebody else's mouth. > > Fair enough. > > I'm only slightly curious why a system which extolls "Varieties" of > Religious Experience would get its panties all in a twist in the first > place, but hey. That's just me and my Jalapeno flavored world view. > > Yours, > > John > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> JC, >> >> I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I think the >> concept >> chocked full of harmful vibes, but by all means go for it. Let the show >> begin. >> I'll wander through the stadium getting rich selling moon pie. >> >> Love you, >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, John Carl wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >>>> And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of the >>>> commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history. I think >> RMP >>>> chose the most appropriate label. Stripping the word "god" of all the >>>> garbage >>>> would be near impossible, imho. >>>> >>>> >>> I dunno Marsha. It has been tried before. There seems to me to be a >>> central problem in human history that when you throw out "God", you throw >>> out values. That's the way it's been. The Russian experiment (remember >> the >>> "godless commies?") didn't work out so well and historically, the use of >> the >>> term has served the evolution of society so that evidently those >> societies >>> that use the term do better than the societies that don't. I feel rather >>> than tossing it out, the MoQ should analyze. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's not the same thing as true atheism. Which is more along the >> lines >>>>> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of >>>> random >>>>> chance, with no positive force behind any of it. No matter what you >> call >>>>> it. >>>> >>>> Here's the definition of atheism I use: Atheists are people who believe >>>> that god >>>> or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths >> and >>>> legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. If >> Krimel >>>> has >>>> a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would seem >> to >>>> narrow >>>> the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition. >>>> >>>> >>> Ok Marsha. Let's look at this carefully. "man-made constructs" - what >>> isn't? Even to use the term implies a supernatural entity, otherwise >> "man" >>> - made is meaningless. >>> >>> Unless you meant gender-wise and you prefer "woman-made constructs". >>> >>> It's like gav pointed out about "Freedom" is also a man-made construct, >> but >>> in the MoQ, even subjective patterns have meaning AS patterns of value. >>> Since people have gone to war repeatedly over such intellectual >> constructs, >>> I fail to see how defining them as "meaningless" is helpful in analyzing >>> them properly. >>> >>> >>>>> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it >> does >>>>> take a sort of faith to perceive God. Just one more way that Quality >> and >>>>> God are differing concepts. I guess the purest way I can make the >>>>> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't >> really >>>> ask >>>>> if Quality is any good. God is measured by Quality, not the other way >>>>> around. >>>>> >>>>> Does that make sense? >>>> >>>> >>>> Perfect sense. So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of God? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Communication with 95% of US Population, for one. Discourse with most of >>> written history, for another. Those two alone hold enough benefit to >> tempt >>> me to go all, "duh!" on you. >>> >>> But I won't because I'm too respectful. >>> >>> Quality doesn't obviate God. Quality tames "God". The comparison with >> SOM >>> is exactly apt - Quality doesn't obviate S/O. Quality tames S/O. >>> >>> >>> >>> John the lion-tamer, >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
